BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 9. 7. 1993, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Bhind, in Claim Case No. 24 of 1988. ( 2 ) THE accident took place on 13. 6. 1988 when the claimant boarded bus No. CIH 7857, but fell off since the driver started the bus without ensuring that the claimant had got into the same safely. As a result of this accident, the claimant suffered compound fracture in the left ankle joint and right pubic bone. He was treated at District hospital, Bhind, then shifted to J. A. Hospital, Gwalior, where he remained for sufficient long time. He was operated, rod inserted in the left leg, skin grafted in the left leg. The claimant is a air-conditioner mechanic in MES, Gwalior. He claimed compensation of Rs. 4,13,600. ( 3 ) THERE is no dispute with respect to taking place of accident as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. There is also no dispute with respect to injuries suffered by the claimant in this accident. The dispute is with regard to compensation paid to the claimant by the claims Tribunal. Therefore, we advert to decide this question in this appeal. ( 4 ) MR. R. P. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the claimant suffered serious injuries in this accident. He was treated at Bhind and thereafter at Gwalior for sufficient long time. Rod was inserted in left leg, skin grafted. During all this period the claimant suffered great pain. There is shortening of left leg by 2". Left leg has stiffened, as a result of which the claimant can neither ride a bicycle nor walk freely. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate and requires enhancement. Attention is drawn to three decisions, namely, Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF, 1998 ACJ 859 (SC); Mool Chand v. S. S. Parihar, 1999 ACJ 820 (MP) and Union of India v. Bhola Ram, 2001 ACJ 125 (MP ). ( 5 ) MR. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the compensation has been awarded in accordance with injuries suffered by the claimant. He did not incur future loss in salary and promotion. The claimant is a mechanic and he will continue to work as such, therefore, enhancement is not called for. ( 5 ) MR. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the compensation has been awarded in accordance with injuries suffered by the claimant. He did not incur future loss in salary and promotion. The claimant is a mechanic and he will continue to work as such, therefore, enhancement is not called for. ( 6 ) GIVING consideration to the whole matter, taking into consideration the evidence of claimant and Dr. H. S. Verma, pw 5, we find that the claimant suffered serious injuries in this accident. He was operated by the doctor, steel rod inserted in left leg and skin engrafted. He remained under treatment for sufficient long time and thereafter, he does not possess the same state of health as he has been possessing before the accident. Left leg has stiffened, working capacity reduced by 50 to 60 per cent. There is no movement of left ankle. The claimant will have to bear this disability during rest of his life. Of course, he has been awarded compensation for loss of salary for the period he remained under treatment but for personal disablement and pain and suffering, he has not been awarded just compensation nor there is compensation for attendant, special diet and transport. Therefore, award of the claims Tribunal is modified and claimant is awarded compensation as under: (1) Permanent disablement Rs. 1,00,000 (2) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000 (3) Transport Rs. 10,000 (4) Special diet Rs. 10,000 (5) Loss of salary Rs. 5,000 Total Rs. 1,75,000 The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. ( 7 ) THE appeal is allowed in terms aforesaid. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .